Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1944 OT.REV NO. 77 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER IN TAVAT 288/2019 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/S:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), KERALA GST DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM.
BY SPL GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR MOHAMMED RAFIQ RESPONDENT/S:
M/S EVM AUTOMOBILES, S.A. ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI-19.
BY ADV SMT.K.LATHA OTHER PRESENT:
Spl. GP Mohd. RAfiq THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.T.(Rev.) No.77/2020
-2-
O R D E R S.V. Bhatti, J.
The instant O.T.Revision is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 25.09.2019 in T.A.(VAT) No.288/2019 before the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam for the returns filed for the Assessment Year 2010-11.
2.
The following questions of law are raised:
(i) Whether the impugned order is in accordance with law?
(ii) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the assessment order is barred by limitation is sustainable, and correct?
(iii) Is not the assessment order for the year 2010-11 is legally correct and sustainable on the basis of the provisions of the KVAT Act, 2003?
3.
Vide judgment dated 22.08.2022, W.A. No.48/2020 and connected cases on similar points have been disposed of. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus:
“16.
The line of submissions now made by the appellant are additional arguments conceived to get over the conclusions recorded in Najeem’s case. The decisions relied on by the appellants
O.T.(Rev.) No.77/2020
-3-
before us, a substantial number of judgments were considered, and a conclusion that Section 25(1) amended by Finance Act 11/2017 is prospective has been recorded by this Court in Najeem’s case. The learned Single Judge followed the view expressed by the Division Bench in Najeem’s case. The substantial question is whether prospective or retrospective and vested rights have accrued to the dealers or not, where the time for reassessment expired by 31.03.2017 has been considered in Najeem’s case and also the impugned judgment. Though an attempt has been made to refer to the issue considered in Najeem’s case and being considered by us in this batch of appeals, which needs reconsideration by the Full Bench, we are convinced that the additional grounds now canvassed by keeping in perspective Najeem’s case do not change the conclusion arrived at in Najeem’s case in our consideration for the reasons we have recorded in the judgment.”
The instant O.T. Revision is dismissed on the same lines.
S.V.BHATTI JUDGE
BASANT BALAJI JUDGE jjj
O.T.(Rev.) No.77/2020
-4-
APPENDIX OF OT.REV 77/2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A A TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 25(1) OF KVAT ACT BEARING 32070261374/2010-11 DATED 29/04/2017 PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, SPECIAL TEAM-I, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF THE OREER DATED 27/11/2018 IN KVATA NO.4070/2017.
ANNEXURE C CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TA (VAT) NO.288/2019 DATED 25/09/2019.